Since I plan to switch to the 64bit version of Windows 7(nice of them to include both version on the disk for the obscene amount of money it costs) in my 2013-2014 build (the one that should have been the 2012 build until, I started paying bills), I'm all for it. 

Gamers however can be very fickle (if that's the correct use of the word), so unless the new content really feels like it would be unable to run on 32 bit, they will complain. I know I would(have,am, will).

Well, the fact is that FE has so many things to keep track of in memory (custom units, custom image on map etc).  I'm pretty sure larger than the current Large maps would not be feasible in 32-bit, definitely not in mid to late game with large to very large number of different units on the map.

the problem is people often mistake shiny visuals to overall complexity. they think graphics are the only indicator of the game complexity.

i think one of the most complex game engine is in a game which have some of the simplest visuals, namely dwarf fortress. so simply judging the book by  it's cover can't be enough.

also, he was speaking of your game being more demanding than an AAA title, well for comparing better with a similar genre, it seems that he didn't attempt to play to civ V, for which a core2duo with 3GB (and already win 7 64) and good hdds, it led to crashes on big map and slow as hell turn computation even when lowering the details to minimum because the game was other 2.6Gb.

suddenly when i changed my pc by a corei7 with 8Gb, the game was running fine. and that for a game for which the complexity is far less than a FE world.

so yeah, all in all strategy games can be much more demanding than FPS or RPG in term of memory.

but even when speaking of FPS, well new frostbite engine games will have MANDATORY 64 bit requirements to run, so really pushing for 64 bit is not far fetched, especially if you think that 64 cpus exists for nearly 10 years. and windows XP, come on, yeah it was nice enough for a long time, but at some point you have to get rid of the old obsolete OS. a windows 7 licence can be had for roughly the price of a game. refusing to update a 10 year old OS is kind of a lame excuse.

I voted "I have 64bit, I don't like the idea.". While I don't like DLC, the main reason I don't like this idea is because it can create a divide in the community. I think this will lead to unexpected problems.

I'll buy the DLC since I would like a 64-bit Fallen Enchantress, I just don't like the idea of it being DLC.

I think there is a better way to handle this... Kickstarter. I don't know if you've heard of this before, but kickstarter works by someone wanting to have a project funded and uses kickstarter to make a type of donation drive. The donation drive has a time limit, and if the goal is reached then the project goes ahead. Many games have had success with this.

I should point out that no money is transferred unless the time for the project is over, and the goal has been reached. Its sort of a risk free way to allow people to put their money where their mouths are without the risk of a project being underfunded. Either the goal is reached, or nothing happens.

What I'm suggesting is, you use kickstarter to make a donation drive to make a free version of the 64-bit version of Fallen Enchantress. If things work out, then Fallen Enchantress should be made and released as both 32-bit and 64-bit versions.

I have backed many kickstarter projects before, and I would gladly support a stardock kickstarter project that would make the "64-bit upgrade" for Fallen Enchantress free for all.

You can find kickstarter here:
http://www.kickstarter.com/

Before I forget, you should figure out how much money you need to make the kickstarter project worth your guy's time, and set that as your target goal.

I don't think that's what Brad meant. Having a 32 and 64 bit version isn't the issue. Having extra content that only works with the 64 bit version, that people who have the 32 bit version of their OS couldn't use at all, is the issue. That content being separate from the main game, that works equally for everyone, would not cause a community divide. Actually, considering it's a singleplayer TBS, nothing can cause a community divide. 

I believe unacomn is right.

Maps that are literally too large to fit in 32bit, and other such things.

Since 64 bit is the future of gaming, for those who don't know the next version of Frostbite 2 engine is going 64 bit only. Yes it currently powers the Battlefield shooters, but Command & Conquer Generals 2 will be using it. I'm sure there will be more titles using this engine as well. IMO it's about damn time. So I voted YES.

bigger the map, the better.

I don't care so much about the details of what brad is trying to make. Sorry if I somehow missed the point. What I do care about how he intends to make this available. I think that making these "updates" DLC that you pay for would be a bad idea.

One of the things I fear is this: Stardock has admitted that they screwed up Elemental: War of Magic. I'm fairly sure that in the eyes of some, Stardock is seen as a bunch of screw ups. If they start trying to sell a 64-bit version of Fallen Enchantress, that makes the game much better than the 32-bit version, those same people may cry foul and begin thinking that Stardock is not just screw ups, but greedy screw ups.

However, I could be wrong about this. I was merely expressing my concerns, and how you might get around this problem. Having the 64-bit version, in whatever format it is made available, made free should be able to avoid this problem.

All it means is that DLC will be available for the game.  If you don't want it, you still have all the core stuff to play with.  A 64-bit version of the game is not something that would get held back for those with a few extra dollars.

And (Mr. Wardell) your first sentence, in your Reply #90, has me worried now ... because I am one of those people currently locked into a WindowsXP, 32bit system, for the present.  This will not last forever; but it is my situation for the near-term future. 

Just to review the bidding, I responded to this survey, originally, by answering that: "I don't currently have 64bit, I don't care." with regard to the question of Stardock making additional down-loadable content (dlc) available, at a nominal cost, to 64bit users.  As I stated then, I am happy to see  ALL  interested gameplayers get the best possible version of E:FE that they can utilize!

I hope, however, that your development team will continue to try to provide a good, working, game to 32bit users.  As I have stated a number of times in your forums, in the last few months, I think it would be a mistake to abandon 32bit users, when it comes to E:FE.  (On the other hand, if you decide, with your very NEXT game, to develop for (and market to) only 64bit users, I would understand.  That way lies the future ...)

However, the 32bit community hasn't become trivial quite yet.  The Beta-Testers tend to be the Power-users; but there is still 15%-20% of the larger market that is stuck with 32bit.  I really don't believe the percentage is any less than that; especially when you consider "poor" students, casual gamers, and non-power users.  You will not be selling many more copies of E:FE to the Beta Testers -- they already have their free copies, and discounted copies.  The (larger) community of casual players and non-Power-users is still where a significant portion of your profits from E:FE will come from, IMO.

I have no problem with a "divide" -- I just hope you won't abandon the 32bit community entirely, when it comes to E:FE. 

I would tend to agree with this, even though I have Win7Pro 64-bit.

The statcounter's US numbers put XP at 30%, I'd prefer those to statcounter's global numbers because a US (or EU) user is more likely to buy the game than somebody in China. The Steam numbers (which are international) give more like 20%, and this is probably even more indicative of potential market for this game. Personally I couldn't care less about XP and 32-bit systems. If you're still running one of these, let's face it you're not really interested in gaming, and not enough to make an investment to pursue it. Did people whine this heavily in the 90's when you're CPU and GPU were physically unable to play newer games within 2 years? It's been 10 years people, let it go and buy something remotely modern.

I would happily pay for 64-bit DLC (reasonably priced for reasonable features) but I have no interest in donating to a kickstarter for it. I'm not an investor, I'm a consumer.